Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/The Golden Compass (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Golden Compass (film)

Seems to me a pretty good article already... I've nominated it for GA, just wanted to see if anyone else would like to comment. Thanks, Mdiamante (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

Overall, it's looking very solid, and certainly most of the hard work has been done. Well done! A few points, though:

1. In the lead, unlink the film series (which is currently a circular link). I'd also rewrite, since there is (at the moment) no confirmation of any further films.

2. Some of the real-world information may need tense changes to the past tense, as the film has been released. (Note that the plot summary, however, should remain consistently in the present tense, per MOS.)

3. book's perceived anti-Christian and atheistic themes - correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Pullman openly admitted these biases? If so, the "perceived" should be dropped - it's not POV to state this as fact if the author confirms it.

4. The cast parentheticals in the plot summary section should be dropped, as the cast section handles this function. See the style guidelines for further information.

5. The plot summary is filled with run-ons, dangling phrases, and other sentences which appear muddled, awkward, or grammatically incorrect. This could use a good copy edit. (See the League of Copy Editors, if necessary.)

6. The cast section could use some beefing up with more information for most of the names, both describing the character and the casting, with references. Asriel's entry is distressingly brief, considering that he's a central character.

7. Discussion of the abrupt ending should probably not be in the development section, but instead be moved to concentrate the topic together either at Reception or an independent section regarding the ending.

8. The title section is really not germane to the film directly - it is more appropriate for the article on the book and book series - all that need be mentioned in the film's article is that the title was taken from the American book release, with a passing mention to the UK title. This is already done in the lead.

9. Production section needs a great deal more coverage, and more equitably spread between the various departments. Given the prior stature of the source material, the large budget, wide PR campaign, and recent release, there should be no difficulty finding references for this.

10. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that second unit and plate shots began well before principal photography.

11. Another thing worth looking into that I remember is that the production had originally chosen to shoot on the Panavision Genesis camera before even settling on a DP. (This is precisely why Henry Braham was hired, since he had prior experience on Flyboys.) However, after tests with both the Genesis and 35mm film, even though Braham preferred to use the Genesis, the studio insisted on film. It was shot on Fujifilm, and I'm certain that their UK-based magazine Exposure has some discussion of this. Some of the more recent issues are on their UK website.

12. The fansite speculation on the extended cut is not a reliable source and should be deleted.

I look forward to seeing how it develops! Good editing, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)